What a few writers are saying about Indiana's religious freedom law
With Indiana and several other states in the USA drafting a law to protect the rights of Christians and Jews who don't want to be forced to serve gay marriage, some artists and writers have decided to launch faux-outrage over it. For example, Patrick Zircher:
Say, Zircher, are you aware Islamic sharia can be turned against gays, women, Jews, Christians, atheists and Buddhists alike? The former's happening in Iran already. That doesn't disturb you?
That could easily describe what's found in the Quran. Namely, it's view of "infidels". But why do I get the feeling none of that concerns our old friend Patrick?
But what about a certain country in the middle east called Saudi Arabia, my dear Zircher? And if that does concern you, what about Apple's business conduct?
A better query would be: has Simone condemned the House of Saud for their own homophobia, and Apple for their kowtowing?
I heard that Simone's not particularly worried about France's jihad crisis. Not even about gays and lesbians who've been attacked by Islamofascists there. And not even about ex-Muslims who've been targeted for apostasy. Is that so?
Americans are okay so long as it doesn't stipulate they must fully service their beliefs, mentalities, ideologies, stuff like that, or that they're forbidden to question the lifestyle. None of which matters to an apparent "progressive", I guess.
But Gail, if you turn your back on homosexuals in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen and Qatar, to name but some examples, then you are tolerant of bigotry. Sorry.
Anyone but Islamofascists, right, my dear Gail?
Tell that to the Islamofascists, Gail. And now, let's turn to Kurt Busiek:
Or do they? According to this recent polling data, blacks oppose gay marriage by 20 digits, and Latinos by 8. The site Busiek turned to is pretty leftist, so maybe this shouldn't be too surprising they'd mislead.
But does Busiek have a problem with Muslim homophobia? Doesn't look that way so far. This was the same guy who didn't think extremism could combine with religion.
And for Busiek, Muslim homophobia may be the least worrisome form of homophobia around too. That's probably also the case with Gerry Conway, who said:
But Islamic discrimination against gays is never to be denounced, is it? Ron Marz doesn't seem particularly bothered either:
And there's nothing like a leftist expressing faux outrage over Christians and Jews who don't want to service the LGBT agenda against their beliefs, is there? Nothing like "normalization" either, if that matters.
And Marz sounds like a guy sans interest in being informed. Although he has addressed the case of Memories Pizza facing death threats and having to close down.
No, if they were facing threats of violence, then it's not a boycott so much as it is an anti-capitalist act.
No argument there. But, how come he doesn't name the possible sources who committed the offenses? And, why does he seem to be falling back on his ultra-leftist position:
In that case, they don't have the right to discriminate against Christians/Jews who disapprove of gay marriage and other such ideologies, nor say they're wrong to disapprove. Nor do they have the right to deny service to Christian customers, as Walid Shoebat recently discovered had happened (H/T: The Jawa Report).
Correction: they're lamenting his ignorance, is what. Right down to his apparent disinterest in Muslim countries who discriminate against gays and lesbians and even execute them. That's why we feel this is all just a lot of faux-outrage. Let's also note the difference between Judeo-Christians and Islam: the former would rather LGBT just let go of that mentality and not insist it be a role model, while the latter considers LGBTs expendable and considers it acceptable to commit violence. So why do these leftists always think the former is worse than the latter? Pure cowardice, I figure. Now here's a tweet by Neil Gaiman:
Why is opposition to the law from the left not altruistic? That'd be a better question. And here's at least two by G. Willow Wilson:
Assuming that's true and not an April Fools joke, have they actually condemned Islamic countries espousing far worse laws than any western country does? Did they even condemn a Muslim tribunal in Texas for trying to establish a sharia court? The only reason I can figure they'd have a problem with this new US law is because they consider it a Christian/Republican development and don't want to be on their side. Just like the reason many Muslims today vote Democrat is because they see their policies coinciding more with theirs, in contrast to how things were up to 2000, when many Muslims in America voted Republican. Yet contrary to what she says, there are Muslims out there who'd be quite fine with such a law, like this barber in Canada who didn't want to provide service to a lesbian. Seeing how there was no serious criticism of the barber for his stance, that's why any alleged opposition to the Indiana law is just a lot of taqqiya.
And again, that's why this is all just a lot of faux-outrage coming from "progressives".
We have ignorant, bigoted policy-makers in Indiana. What can be turned against gay, can be turned against Jew, atheist, Muslim, and so on.
— Patch Zircher (@PatrickZircher) March 31, 2015
Say, Zircher, are you aware Islamic sharia can be turned against gays, women, Jews, Christians, atheists and Buddhists alike? The former's happening in Iran already. That doesn't disturb you?
My feeling is that none of that concerns them, everyone is 'other' in their book.
— Patch Zircher (@PatrickZircher) March 31, 2015
That could easily describe what's found in the Quran. Namely, it's view of "infidels". But why do I get the feeling none of that concerns our old friend Patrick?
The 'Religious Freedom' Act in Indiana sucks. Truly sucks. But these 19 other states should have thought so as well: pic.twitter.com/YNPCYtLgEq
— Patch Zircher (@PatrickZircher) March 31, 2015
But what about a certain country in the middle east called Saudi Arabia, my dear Zircher? And if that does concern you, what about Apple's business conduct?
And one of the worst things about it, especially if you support gay marriage, is how parochial the outrage is. MKH touched on that the other night in noting that Apple somehow manages to tolerate capital punishment for gays in Saudi Arabia in the name of selling iPhones there. Jonah Goldberg noted on Twitter this morning that Iran’s own death sentences for the crime of homosexuality are obviously no impediment to the peace-in-our-time nuclear deal that’s brewing right now. The world’s richest corporation and most powerful government could draw real red lines aimed at helping gays abroad but they don’t because it might cost them something. Only when it costs them nothing, like in the absurd hypothetical of a great wave of Indiana businesses kicking gays out, do they pound the table. They’re beneath contempt. And they’ll never be called on it by anyone who matters to them.So, Zircher, will you be buying any more products from Apple Corp. so long as they continue to put up with those horrors in the House of Saud? It may not matter to Apple, but what about you, Patrick? Here's your chance to vote with your wallet and let Apple know you can't approve of their deaf-ear turn. Next is Gail Simone:
Wait, is this true, that @nascar has condemned @govpenceIN and his rotten bill?
— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) April 1, 2015
A better query would be: has Simone condemned the House of Saud for their own homophobia, and Apple for their kowtowing?
I heard that @GovPenceIN's new law about throwing kittens at French people is "absolutely not about throwing kittens at French people."
— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) April 1, 2015
"If I saw an ice cream vendor throwing cats at French people, I would not eat there." --@GovPenceIN, while throwing cats at French people
— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) April 1, 2015
I heard that Simone's not particularly worried about France's jihad crisis. Not even about gays and lesbians who've been attacked by Islamofascists there. And not even about ex-Muslims who've been targeted for apostasy. Is that so?
Why is it, when polls shows that Americans are increasingly okay with gay rights, these politicians are doubling down on homophobia?
— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) April 2, 2015
Americans are okay so long as it doesn't stipulate they must fully service their beliefs, mentalities, ideologies, stuff like that, or that they're forbidden to question the lifestyle. None of which matters to an apparent "progressive", I guess.
Oh, for god's sakes, grow up. That horseshit is for children. You're not SUPPOSED to be tolerant of bigotry. @squeejo
— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) April 2, 2015
But Gail, if you turn your back on homosexuals in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen and Qatar, to name but some examples, then you are tolerant of bigotry. Sorry.
Jesus, I can't believe anyone uses that "You're being intolerant of my homophobia and racism" excuse with a straight face. It's humiliating.
— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) April 2, 2015
Anyone but Islamofascists, right, my dear Gail?
Jesus. Get a new conversational gambit, homophobes. This one sucks.
— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) April 2, 2015
Tell that to the Islamofascists, Gail. And now, let's turn to Kurt Busiek:
Turns out African-Americans oppose laws letting people refuse to serve categories of people. Who’d’ve guessed? http://t.co/Oo6lo1QypR
— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) March 31, 2015
Or do they? According to this recent polling data, blacks oppose gay marriage by 20 digits, and Latinos by 8. The site Busiek turned to is pretty leftist, so maybe this shouldn't be too surprising they'd mislead.
Yep. Wanting to be treated the same as straight people _proves_ that “Big Gay” wants homosexual supremacy, After all, they’re big! And gay!
— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) April 1, 2015
Big Oil and Big Pharma don’t have a problem being unable to get married! So what’s the problem with Big Gay? Can’t they just have mergers?
— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) April 1, 2015
But does Busiek have a problem with Muslim homophobia? Doesn't look that way so far. This was the same guy who didn't think extremism could combine with religion.
We must be eternally vigilant against— Nah, can’t do it. “Big Gay” is the least-threatening nom-de-doom ever. Fear their cuddly amiability!
— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) April 1, 2015
And for Busiek, Muslim homophobia may be the least worrisome form of homophobia around too. That's probably also the case with Gerry Conway, who said:
More asshats: Indiana Law Denounced as Invitation to Discriminate Against Gays, via @nytimes http://t.co/UdAax69dUw
— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) March 28, 2015
But Islamic discrimination against gays is never to be denounced, is it? Ron Marz doesn't seem particularly bothered either:
Is there video of Mike Pence's appearance on @ThisWeekABC yet? Because there's nothing like a train wreck on a Sunday morning.
— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) March 29, 2015
And there's nothing like a leftist expressing faux outrage over Christians and Jews who don't want to service the LGBT agenda against their beliefs, is there? Nothing like "normalization" either, if that matters.
Mike Pence looks like Race Bannon, if Race Bannon was a big jerk. pic.twitter.com/w7d6Lu8gI8
— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 1, 2015
And Marz sounds like a guy sans interest in being informed. Although he has addressed the case of Memories Pizza facing death threats and having to close down.
So if #MemoriesPizza goes out of business, that's the invisible hand of the free market at work, right?
— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 1, 2015
No, if they were facing threats of violence, then it's not a boycott so much as it is an anti-capitalist act.
And for the record, the people making idiot threats against #MemoriesPizza are dead wrong, and deserve to be punished.
— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 2, 2015
No argument there. But, how come he doesn't name the possible sources who committed the offenses? And, why does he seem to be falling back on his ultra-leftist position:
People have every right to have ignorant, bigoted views. They just don't have the right to discriminate because of them. #MemoriesPizza
— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 2, 2015
In that case, they don't have the right to discriminate against Christians/Jews who disapprove of gay marriage and other such ideologies, nor say they're wrong to disapprove. Nor do they have the right to deny service to Christian customers, as Walid Shoebat recently discovered had happened (H/T: The Jawa Report).
That's weird, people who don't follow me now squealing at me about persecution and tyranny and McCarthy. Oh, my stars and garters!
— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 2, 2015
Correction: they're lamenting his ignorance, is what. Right down to his apparent disinterest in Muslim countries who discriminate against gays and lesbians and even execute them. That's why we feel this is all just a lot of faux-outrage. Let's also note the difference between Judeo-Christians and Islam: the former would rather LGBT just let go of that mentality and not insist it be a role model, while the latter considers LGBTs expendable and considers it acceptable to commit violence. So why do these leftists always think the former is worse than the latter? Pure cowardice, I figure. Now here's a tweet by Neil Gaiman:
http://t.co/fmK22kGHEm Why is this religious freedom law not like all other similar laws. #indiana
— Neil Gaiman (@neilhimself) March 30, 2015
Why is opposition to the law from the left not altruistic? That'd be a better question. And here's at least two by G. Willow Wilson:
Yeah so this fear-baiting stuff is not cool, nor is it progressive. Majority of American Muslims vote Democrat, folks http://t.co/hhZpEi8pEi
— G. Willow Wilson (@GWillowWilson) April 1, 2015
It's especially silly considering that the nation's largest Muslim association, ISNA, just came out AGAINST the Indiana law.
— G. Willow Wilson (@GWillowWilson) April 1, 2015
Assuming that's true and not an April Fools joke, have they actually condemned Islamic countries espousing far worse laws than any western country does? Did they even condemn a Muslim tribunal in Texas for trying to establish a sharia court? The only reason I can figure they'd have a problem with this new US law is because they consider it a Christian/Republican development and don't want to be on their side. Just like the reason many Muslims today vote Democrat is because they see their policies coinciding more with theirs, in contrast to how things were up to 2000, when many Muslims in America voted Republican. Yet contrary to what she says, there are Muslims out there who'd be quite fine with such a law, like this barber in Canada who didn't want to provide service to a lesbian. Seeing how there was no serious criticism of the barber for his stance, that's why any alleged opposition to the Indiana law is just a lot of taqqiya.
And again, that's why this is all just a lot of faux-outrage coming from "progressives".
Labels: dreadful artists, dreadful writers, Europe and Asia, islam and jihad, moonbat writers, politics, violence
ISNA's opposition to the RFRA sounds like a case of taqqiya.
And Simone says that you are not supposed to be tolerant of bigotry. But her definition of "bigotry" is "any disagreement with me about anything."
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:15 AM
Some inform Wilson:
If a Christian doesn't cater a gay wedding, he's a bigot.
If a Muslim doesn't cater a gay wedding, you're a bigot.
As for Simone, especially, with her you'll find no greater hive of ignorance and stupidity. Seriously.
Posted by
Hube |
10:07 AM
In the first place, you should consider rewriting the first couple sentences because the way you've said it makes it sound like the equivalent of a meat-eater being married into a vegetarian family.
Second: I honestly don't know why you're so concerned about the Middle East when your not even a native from that part of the world. Let America come first and everyone else second while that sandy region self-destructs from so many conflicting cultures and practices being confined in its area, the people there can go, but not the resources, that's more important.
Posted by
Drag |
11:10 AM
Avi's lived in Israel for over 30 years. I'd say that gives him a right to be concerned about the Middle East.
Posted by
Hube |
1:19 PM
That's the part that amazes me: how can you live in a region of the world for so long when A: the natives of said region hate your race so much that they want to test their swords and bombs on you, and B: even removing the human element from the equation, it's still not the most pleasant place in the world to live in?
Posted by
Drag |
1:37 PM
According to Drag, if someone wants to kill you, then you should just move. Run away, Avi! Run, away!
Hmmm. There's only one problem: Islamic terrorists are determined to hunt down Jews everywhere in the world and kill them.
Now what, Drag?
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:31 AM
Survivability doesn't just refer to outrunning your opponents, it can also refer to overpowering them, poisoning them, making it too hard to get to you, etc.
That aside, why not just take some bombers, fly over troubled areas, and pound them until they give up? If the first round doesn't get them, just up the stakes with nukes and the like; after all, there's nothing to wreck out there.
Posted by
Drag |
2:08 PM
If I may be permitted to return to the original topic...
Simone says that most American Muslims vote Democratic. Of course. Many Libertarians vote Republican, although they disagree on certain issues (abortion, legalizing drugs). Muslims may not agree with the Democrats on gay rights, but they have common interests on what they consider to be more important issues (weakening America's defenses, undermining Israel, helping Iran get nukes).
And Simone, Marz, and the rest of the usual suspects need a crash course in Logic (and Tolerance, for that matter) 101:
Your rights are being violated if you and your partner (both competent, consenting adults) can't marry. Your rights are not being violated if you have to settle for a civil ceremony instead of a fancy church wedding, because some religions and denominations don't condone same-sex marriage.
Your rights are being violated if you can't marry. Your rights are not violated if you have to shop around a little, because some florists and photographers and bakeries cater to gay weddings, and some don't.
My rights are not being violated if a gay couple move into the house next door. My rights are violated if I am forced to take part in their wedding ceremony. (That includes catering it.)
Your rights are not violated if a florist declines to sell flowers for your wedding. Or if a bakery declines to provide a cake. Or if a minister refuses to perform the ceremony.
Your rights are violated if you are a priest or rabbi, and the law requires you to perform a wedding ceremony that is against your religion. Or if you own a flower shop or a bakery, and you get driven out of business by death threats.
Posted by
Anonymous |
7:27 PM